7 ms·

This whole situation made me realize that the mechanism for holding presidents accountable for campaign promises really doesn’t exist. None of this is what peop

This whole situation made me realize that the mechanism for holding presidents accountable for campaign promises really doesn’t exist. None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about. This seems like a fundamental problem with the system to me. If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational. Presumably the mechanism is supposed to be Congress and impeachment, but that doesn’t work if the president is directly influencing their election campaigns. I do wonder if / how something could be implemented that addresses this, beyond just losing at the next election.

ikr678 8mo ago
This used to be the job of the third estate, but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest, drowning us in a sea of content.
- davkan 8mo ago
  The media is the fourth estate. In the modern US the first three are often interpreted as the branches of government. Historically estates were often some combination of the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners.
- ethbr1 8mo ago
  > but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest We should be explicit about what happened: Google and Facebook skimmed off most of advertising revenue that previously supported journalism. Then neither originated new news in quantity or quality to replace what they ate. Revenues (from ads) without costs (of paying journalists) = their profits. Now, we have orders of magnitude less professional journalism. When you boil it down, their business models are less about being clever and more about redirecting a huge, previously-social-good flow of money through their toll gates and taxing it.
  - yubblegum 8mo ago
    Sorry, have to call b.s. on lack of funds. Our media are owned by a very few, a handful, of corporations. And this happened before Google even existed. It happened in the 90s. > business model I don't know, is this willful ignorance? Press is political ...
    - ethbr1 8mo ago
      A prior ill doesn't excuse a subsequent one. That Sinclair, Nexstar, CC/iHeartMedia were allowed to consolidate in the 90s is bad. That Google et al. decimated newspaper revenue from the mid-00s onwards without replacing their newsrooms is worse.* I wouldn't have as big a gripe if Google or Facebook had started their own news bureaus and funded them with their profits. It still would have been a rounding error on their balance sheet. But instead they destroyed a social good, took their bonuses, and called it a day. * See 2007, the year Google was allowed to buy DoubleClick https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...
Neil44 8mo ago
Pretty big assumption you're making, that you know what people voted for.
- keiferski 8mo ago
  I’d be glad to see evidence that people voted for interventions in the Middle East, if you have any. My impression is that a key part of Trump’s campaign was ending excessive foreign wars. There are lots of clips going around with him saying this.
  - kakacik 8mo ago
    Well yeah but he is a pathological liar, fraudster and a criminal. This was well known during 2nd election campaign. Expecting to hold any promises just because they were said and got him where he wanted is a bit naive, don't you think? Or does the idea of 'but now he will act completely differently to his entire prior life!' makes any sense to you?
  - applfanboysbgon 8mo ago
    Trump's approval rating among his base is still overwhelmingly high. They know what they were voting for, and they still support him. They know that Trump lies like he breathes, and they are perfectly fine with that. Trump supporters themselves are largely liars. They do not openly state the positions they actually hold. That Trump says X and does Y is fine because his supporters say X and believe Y. Words are a game to them, a means to accomplish a goal rather than something to communicate honestly with. The most important thing to understand about Trump and conservatism in general, by far, is that there is one central principle that underpines the entire ideology: hierarchy. Going back to the time of kings and nobility and clergy, through to the present day. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." One set of laws for the people higher in the hierarchy, and one set of laws for the people lower in the hierarchy. Things that are okay for them to do are not okay for you to do. Wars started by Democrats are bad. Wars started by Republicans are good. They know this is not convincing rhetoric to anyone who is not part of the in-group, so they lie about their reasons and play games with words. This, however, is what they truly believe. It is why every action they take appears hypocritical to their opponents, but in actuality, it is perfectly consistent with their values - it is good when they do it, because everything is good when they do it, and it is bad when somebody else does it, because everything is bad when somebody else does it. It is why "the only moral abortion is my abortion". It is why the exact same policies executed by different presidents will have the same approval rating by democrats, but a completely inverse approval rating by republicans (eg 40% of Democrats approve of either Obama or Trump striking Syria, while 20% of Republicans approve if Obama does it and 80% approve if Trump does it). It is the single consistent trend through all of their policies. They know exactly what they were voting for, and that is for the man who represents their hierarchy. The games he plays with words are part of the platform. Edit: I have rewrote the message quite a bit, apologies if anything doesn't make sense.
spankalee 8mo ago
The US needs a parliamentary system. Trump would have been dumped already. Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.
- stef25 8mo ago
  > Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity. Pray that you'll see the end of it in 3 years. It would be surprise if that ship can be turned around.
  - kakacik 8mo ago
    My gut feeling is that next person after him (if he actually gives up office which is in land of wishful thinking at this point) may be worse, and even visibly worse and US folks will still vote for him/her. I sure hope my gut is wildly incorrect this time, for me, you, and mankind overall.
  - whycombigator 8mo ago
    Pray? Is this the new federalized form of voting for November and onward?
  - aa-jv 8mo ago
    >Pray This kills the democracy.
- jjgreen 8mo ago
  Are you sure? https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/ https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/
- mike_hearn 8mo ago
  In Parliamentary systems, governments still regularly do things that violate or weren't in their manifestos.
  - spankalee 8mo ago
    Of course, but at least there's a realistic, actually used, mechanism for replacing an administration. Impeachment in the US is a complete non-factor, so you can only wait for four years, no matter how bad things get.
SadErn 8mo ago
You're watching the wrong game. This isn't politics. This is American imperialism. The constant wars happen regardless of who is elected or what they believe in. Even Obama had his Libya The first thing you must understand, is this is the US protecting the Petro-dollar. China and Iran were trading goods for oil, and bypassing our currency. Nukes are a factor as well. The rest is laid out plainly here: https://datarepublican.substack.com/p/data-analysis-of-the-state-of-the https://datarepublican.substack.com/p/data-analysis-of-the-s...
- nebula8804 8mo ago
  This person is FAR from an unbiased source and has made regular mistakes that have hurt countless people due to her biases over the last year.
kdheiwns 8mo ago
A lot of people voted on a platform of pissing off a lot of people. A lot of people are pissed. Polls on the day of the invasion indicated a lack of support; since then a lot of people have shown that they're pissed, and now that voter base is supporting the admin and these actions because they see people getting pissed. It sounds petty and dumb. Unfortunately, that's what's happening. 44% support the invasion. [1] That's identical to the constant 40-45% support the admin has had since day one. There has been no change in support and there never will be. There's absolutely no convincing them, leaving us with the only option of figuring out how we're supposed to deal with a country where nearly half the population has a mindset no different from willing kamikaze pilots. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americans-oppose-military-action-in-iran-new-poll-finds https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americ...
- lukan 8mo ago
  The source seems bad, for some reasons they added the 10% of "unsure" to "supports". "the new survey found 56% of Americans oppose U.S. military action in Iran, while 44% support it." But later: "A majority -- 54% -- of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran. Another 36% approve and 10% are unsure" 36% support it.
  - kdheiwns 8mo ago
    They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall. Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.
    - lukan 8mo ago
      I missed that, but then it is still not correct to say 44% support the invasion. In a very different framework (clear plan, cooperation with iranian opposition, working exile government, transition plan ..) I also can see myself supporting military action against the religious fanatics in power in Iran. But this invasion I do not support.
John23832 8mo ago
That mechanism used to be shame.
sshine 8mo ago
There's an election in my country, and every campaign is full of lies: Every bold change, whether it's more or less taxes, will not realize. It is just meant for people to vote on, not for the government to realize. I do think that in multi-party systems, parties have more to lose long-term. One crazy president won't fundamentally change your color.
thunky 8mo ago
> If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational. And then people wonder why the voter participation rate is so low.
- nebula8804 8mo ago
  Correct me if im wrong but didn't Trump bring out a large swath of non-voters during his runs?
fabian2k 8mo ago
Trump was mostly a known quantity when elected a second time. And on foreign policy it was clear that he would be at least erratic and unpredictable. This is not an unexpected result of voting for Trump. People voted for a vindictive and petty criminal that doesn't care about rules or laws. This is the result of that.
- JKCalhoun 8mo ago
  I, agree. It's impossible for me to afford any cover for someone who says they thought they were voting for a guy who would not start any wars. I can't think of a time in my life when the choice was any more clear.
deeg 8mo ago
I think people did vote for this and the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally. The senate just voted to not curtail his actions in Iran and only one GOP senator opposed.
- Schmerika 8mo ago
  > the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally That doesn't prove what people voted for. It proves the quality - or lack thereof - of the voting population, the political class, and the media. Few want to hear that. Fewer still understand it.
  - nickthegreek 8mo ago
    Those people aren’t in the streets shouting that this isn’t what they voted for. Stands to reason that many are just fine with how everything is playing out.
thisisit 8mo ago
Trump has always been incoherent. On one hand he had "No new wars", he also was pretty clear on his disdain for Middle Eastern countries - the ones not giving him millions in bribes. People knew that he was incoherent and inconsistent. He proved that during his first Presidency. So, I don't think it is a case of "not what people voted for". People are getting exactly what they voted for - chaos and incoherence. As you said, Congress doesn't want to do anything due to elections. And courts have declared that President actions are always justified. Choices beyond losing election requires either of these branches to act. Without that, wait for the next election.
- ryandrake 8mo ago
  > And courts have declared that President actions are always justified. To be more specific, the SCOTUS has only declared one particular President's actions as always justified. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that they suddenly reverse this opinion as soon as someone from the other team becomes president.
motiw 8mo ago
Maybe the solution is a referendum that would allow forcing elections at any moment
Server6 8mo ago
Unfortunately this is exactly what people voted for. Did you not listen to Trump during the campaign? He promised chaos, revenge, racism, and incoherent nonsense. We're getting exactly that 10x.
nullocator 8mo ago
> None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about. Citation needed. I think there is demonstrable evidence that this is exactly what people voted for and they will continue voting and behaving exactly as they have been for the foreseeable future. Around ~30-40% of the U.S. population is basically subject to the whims of of the other 60-70% who are either A. Cult members B. Completely apathetic or C. Stupid/Insane and openly hostile to any techniques that could be used to bring them around. It's seemingly impossible to get off this progression, and no the apathetic people being shocked into making an opposition based choice every ~4 years before they go back to fucking off is not going to pull us out.
vkou 8mo ago
That mechanism exists, it's called congress, the problem is that half the country is dancing in the streets over this. Or at least, it's going to vote the fuckers doing this in again in November.

ikr678 8mo ago

This used to be the job of the third estate, but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest, drowning us in a sea of content.

davkan 8mo ago
The media is the fourth estate. In the modern US the first three are often interpreted as the branches of government. Historically estates were often some combination of the nobility, the clergy, and the commoners.
ethbr1 8mo ago
> but traditional media has all been captured and the algorithms have done the rest We should be explicit about what happened: Google and Facebook skimmed off most of advertising revenue that previously supported journalism. Then neither originated new news in quantity or quality to replace what they ate. Revenues (from ads) without costs (of paying journalists) = their profits. Now, we have orders of magnitude less professional journalism. When you boil it down, their business models are less about being clever and more about redirecting a huge, previously-social-good flow of money through their toll gates and taxing it.
- yubblegum 8mo ago
  Sorry, have to call b.s. on lack of funds. Our media are owned by a very few, a handful, of corporations. And this happened before Google even existed. It happened in the 90s. > business model I don't know, is this willful ignorance? Press is political ...
  - ethbr1 8mo ago
    A prior ill doesn't excuse a subsequent one. That Sinclair, Nexstar, CC/iHeartMedia were allowed to consolidate in the 90s is bad. That Google et al. decimated newspaper revenue from the mid-00s onwards without replacing their newsrooms is worse.* I wouldn't have as big a gripe if Google or Facebook had started their own news bureaus and funded them with their profits. It still would have been a rounding error on their balance sheet. But instead they destroyed a social good, took their bonuses, and called it a day. * See 2007, the year Google was allowed to buy DoubleClick https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers/ https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/newspapers...

Neil44 8mo ago

Pretty big assumption you're making, that you know what people voted for.

keiferski 8mo ago
I’d be glad to see evidence that people voted for interventions in the Middle East, if you have any. My impression is that a key part of Trump’s campaign was ending excessive foreign wars. There are lots of clips going around with him saying this.
- kakacik 8mo ago
  Well yeah but he is a pathological liar, fraudster and a criminal. This was well known during 2nd election campaign. Expecting to hold any promises just because they were said and got him where he wanted is a bit naive, don't you think? Or does the idea of 'but now he will act completely differently to his entire prior life!' makes any sense to you?
- applfanboysbgon 8mo ago
  Trump's approval rating among his base is still overwhelmingly high. They know what they were voting for, and they still support him. They know that Trump lies like he breathes, and they are perfectly fine with that. Trump supporters themselves are largely liars. They do not openly state the positions they actually hold. That Trump says X and does Y is fine because his supporters say X and believe Y. Words are a game to them, a means to accomplish a goal rather than something to communicate honestly with. The most important thing to understand about Trump and conservatism in general, by far, is that there is one central principle that underpines the entire ideology: hierarchy. Going back to the time of kings and nobility and clergy, through to the present day. "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect." One set of laws for the people higher in the hierarchy, and one set of laws for the people lower in the hierarchy. Things that are okay for them to do are not okay for you to do. Wars started by Democrats are bad. Wars started by Republicans are good. They know this is not convincing rhetoric to anyone who is not part of the in-group, so they lie about their reasons and play games with words. This, however, is what they truly believe. It is why every action they take appears hypocritical to their opponents, but in actuality, it is perfectly consistent with their values - it is good when they do it, because everything is good when they do it, and it is bad when somebody else does it, because everything is bad when somebody else does it. It is why "the only moral abortion is my abortion". It is why the exact same policies executed by different presidents will have the same approval rating by democrats, but a completely inverse approval rating by republicans (eg 40% of Democrats approve of either Obama or Trump striking Syria, while 20% of Republicans approve if Obama does it and 80% approve if Trump does it). It is the single consistent trend through all of their policies. They know exactly what they were voting for, and that is for the man who represents their hierarchy. The games he plays with words are part of the platform. Edit: I have rewrote the message quite a bit, apologies if anything doesn't make sense.

spankalee 8mo ago

The US needs a parliamentary system. Trump would have been dumped already. Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity.

stef25 8mo ago
> Instead we have to wait 3 more years to end this insanity. Pray that you'll see the end of it in 3 years. It would be surprise if that ship can be turned around.
- kakacik 8mo ago
  My gut feeling is that next person after him (if he actually gives up office which is in land of wishful thinking at this point) may be worse, and even visibly worse and US folks will still vote for him/her. I sure hope my gut is wildly incorrect this time, for me, you, and mankind overall.
- whycombigator 8mo ago
  Pray? Is this the new federalized form of voting for November and onward?
- aa-jv 8mo ago
  >Pray This kills the democracy.
jjgreen 8mo ago
Are you sure? https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/ https://www.draftbarrontrump.com/
mike_hearn 8mo ago
In Parliamentary systems, governments still regularly do things that violate or weren't in their manifestos.
- spankalee 8mo ago
  Of course, but at least there's a realistic, actually used, mechanism for replacing an administration. Impeachment in the US is a complete non-factor, so you can only wait for four years, no matter how bad things get.

SadErn 8mo ago

You're watching the wrong game. This isn't politics. This is American imperialism. The constant wars happen regardless of who is elected or what they believe in. Even Obama had his Libya The first thing you must understand, is this is the US protecting the Petro-dollar. China and Iran were trading goods for oil, and bypassing our currency. Nukes are a factor as well. The rest is laid out plainly here: https://datarepublican.substack.com/p/data-analysis-of-the-state-of-the https://datarepublican.substack.com/p/data-analysis-of-the-s...

nebula8804 8mo ago
This person is FAR from an unbiased source and has made regular mistakes that have hurt countless people due to her biases over the last year.

kdheiwns 8mo ago

A lot of people voted on a platform of pissing off a lot of people. A lot of people are pissed. Polls on the day of the invasion indicated a lack of support; since then a lot of people have shown that they're pissed, and now that voter base is supporting the admin and these actions because they see people getting pissed. It sounds petty and dumb. Unfortunately, that's what's happening. 44% support the invasion. [1] That's identical to the constant 40-45% support the admin has had since day one. There has been no change in support and there never will be. There's absolutely no convincing them, leaving us with the only option of figuring out how we're supposed to deal with a country where nearly half the population has a mindset no different from willing kamikaze pilots. [1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americans-oppose-military-action-in-iran-new-poll-finds https://www.pbs.org/newshour/amp/politics/majority-of-americ...

lukan 8mo ago
The source seems bad, for some reasons they added the 10% of "unsure" to "supports". "the new survey found 56% of Americans oppose U.S. military action in Iran, while 44% support it." But later: "A majority -- 54% -- of Americans disapprove of how Trump is handling Iran. Another 36% approve and 10% are unsure" 36% support it.
- kdheiwns 8mo ago
  They're different questions. One is whether they support the way Trump is doing it. The other is whether they support a war overall. Their reason for supporting a war but not the way Trump is doing it could range from it being too extreme to not being extreme enough. Some people unironically want nuclear weapons to be dropped and will settle for nothing less.
  - lukan 8mo ago
    I missed that, but then it is still not correct to say 44% support the invasion. In a very different framework (clear plan, cooperation with iranian opposition, working exile government, transition plan ..) I also can see myself supporting military action against the religious fanatics in power in Iran. But this invasion I do not support.

John23832 8mo ago

That mechanism used to be shame.

sshine 8mo ago

There's an election in my country, and every campaign is full of lies: Every bold change, whether it's more or less taxes, will not realize. It is just meant for people to vote on, not for the government to realize. I do think that in multi-party systems, parties have more to lose long-term. One crazy president won't fundamentally change your color.

thunky 8mo ago

> If you can’t count on the candidate to at least attempt sticking to campaign promises, then the entire process is irrational. And then people wonder why the voter participation rate is so low.

nebula8804 8mo ago
Correct me if im wrong but didn't Trump bring out a large swath of non-voters during his runs?

fabian2k 8mo ago

Trump was mostly a known quantity when elected a second time. And on foreign policy it was clear that he would be at least erratic and unpredictable. This is not an unexpected result of voting for Trump. People voted for a vindictive and petty criminal that doesn't care about rules or laws. This is the result of that.

JKCalhoun 8mo ago
I, agree. It's impossible for me to afford any cover for someone who says they thought they were voting for a guy who would not start any wars. I can't think of a time in my life when the choice was any more clear.

deeg 8mo ago

I think people did vote for this and the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally. The senate just voted to not curtail his actions in Iran and only one GOP senator opposed.

Schmerika 8mo ago
> the proof is that Republicans are still supporting trump almost unequivocally That doesn't prove what people voted for. It proves the quality - or lack thereof - of the voting population, the political class, and the media. Few want to hear that. Fewer still understand it.
- nickthegreek 8mo ago
  Those people aren’t in the streets shouting that this isn’t what they voted for. Stands to reason that many are just fine with how everything is playing out.

thisisit 8mo ago

Trump has always been incoherent. On one hand he had "No new wars", he also was pretty clear on his disdain for Middle Eastern countries - the ones not giving him millions in bribes. People knew that he was incoherent and inconsistent. He proved that during his first Presidency. So, I don't think it is a case of "not what people voted for". People are getting exactly what they voted for - chaos and incoherence. As you said, Congress doesn't want to do anything due to elections. And courts have declared that President actions are always justified. Choices beyond losing election requires either of these branches to act. Without that, wait for the next election.

ryandrake 8mo ago
> And courts have declared that President actions are always justified. To be more specific, the SCOTUS has only declared one particular President's actions as always justified. I would be willing to bet any amount of money that they suddenly reverse this opinion as soon as someone from the other team becomes president.

motiw 8mo ago

Maybe the solution is a referendum that would allow forcing elections at any moment

Server6 8mo ago

Unfortunately this is exactly what people voted for. Did you not listen to Trump during the campaign? He promised chaos, revenge, racism, and incoherent nonsense. We're getting exactly that 10x.

nullocator 8mo ago

> None of this is what people voted for, and is almost directly the opposite. That isn’t a new thing, of course, but this seems like a pretty huge turnaround from what the campaign was about. Citation needed. I think there is demonstrable evidence that this is exactly what people voted for and they will continue voting and behaving exactly as they have been for the foreseeable future. Around ~30-40% of the U.S. population is basically subject to the whims of of the other 60-70% who are either A. Cult members B. Completely apathetic or C. Stupid/Insane and openly hostile to any techniques that could be used to bring them around. It's seemingly impossible to get off this progression, and no the apathetic people being shocked into making an opposition based choice every ~4 years before they go back to fucking off is not going to pull us out.

vkou 8mo ago

That mechanism exists, it's called congress, the problem is that half the country is dancing in the streets over this. Or at least, it's going to vote the fuckers doing this in again in November.